Negative info about apple isn't allowed on/. I am really suprised the mods haven't down moded all the above posts that talk about the problem. Normally they try to bury such info.
Hell, about the only time I get a down mod is when I say something negative against apple. I even have a poster who follows my ebay buying history to 'harass' me about it.
That is all well and good till another major war breaks out and the USA isn't able to supply its armed forces with what they need. And, war will break out again, always has and always will.
And I am sure that American companies will be paid for their property too. Of course it will be in yuan and will then have to convert to dollars at the artificial low exchange rate...
OR perhaps mexico (one of the most corrupt goverments in the world) was afraid that the US would invade, China doesn't have that worry as we do not have the sealift capacity to land a sufficent number of US troups in China.
I am an American and I do not think that my childern should have to put up with a much lower standard of living and quality of life just so some F500 CEO can make a few million more.
BTW, nice intellegent response. Please go back to DU and/or FR.
I have no trouble with buying products from countries that have modern goverments who treat its citizens correctly. China and India do not fall into this catagory. China treats almost all it subjects as expendible and India's cast system and the 'untouchables' need to gotten rid of.
Motley Fool CEOs Still Raking It In Monday April 19, 10:17 am ET By Selena Maranjian
Has corporate America learned anything from Americans' outrage over CEO compensation excesses, fueled by the likes of erstwhile Tyco (NYSE: TYC - News) CEO Dennis Kozlowski? Not too much, it seems.
BusinessWeek has once more surveyed executives of major corporations, and the folks at United for a Fair Economy (www.ufenet.org) have used its data to calculate that the average CEO collected $155,769 per week, compared with the $517 earned weekly by the average production worker. This means CEOs took in $301 for every dollar earned by rank-and-file employees.
Are such executives really 301 times more valuable than average workers? It's hard to imagine that's the case with so many major corporations not exactly performing in stellar fashion. Sure, some CEOs, such as Berkshire Hathaway's (NYSE: BRK.A - News)(NYSE: BRK.B - News) Warren Buffett and eBay's (Nasdaq: EBAY - News) Meg Whitman, take home relatively little in relation to the return their firms deliver to shareholders. But then, as BusinessWeek pointed out, you have Larry Ellison of Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL - News), who took in some $750 million in total pay in the three years from 2000 to 2003, while his shareholders lost 54%. And then there's Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW - News), who took in $35 million in the same period while his shareholder return was -84%.
Has the picture been improving any over time? Well, yes and no. The high-water mark for this survey came in 2001, when CEOs raked in 531 times what average workers did. That dropped precipitously in 2002, to 282, but has clearly inched up a bit since then. (The wide spread is largely due to the swooning stock market, which took with it the value of many bigwigs' stock options.) In 2003, the average surveyed CEO earned $8.1 million in total pay, up 9% from 2002. Meanwhile, the average production worker's salary increased just 2%. Step back further and the situation is grimmer. In 1982, CEOs took in just 42 times what average workers did.
Believe it or not, average Americans are not the only ones concerned about this. Back in 2002, The Conference Board issued recommendations on improving corporate compensation and governance, featuring some thoughts from Warren Buffett himself. Buffett pointed out that compensation committees often act like lap dogs, rubber-stamping CEO requests for pay increases, as CEOs strive to keep up with each other.
What's needed? A little more backbone in the boardroom, for starters. If you're paying a CEO $5 million per year and he wants $6 million, can you really not find someone else who's talented and would be happy to do the job for $5 million, or perhaps even $2 million? Let's see a little competition for these plum posts.
Share your thoughts on our discussion boards. We're offering a free 30-day trial. Drop in to see what Fools are saying.
Longtime Fool contributor Selena Maranjian owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, eBay, and Sun Microsystems.
These jobs aren't being lost because they are outdated. They are lost because companies, with insurace/tax incentives/military backing from the US goverment, are moving them overseas.
What do you think will happen if China or India nationalizes our industries? It happend to our oil companies in Mexico and it may happen again.
Where is the advantage to the average American in offshoring? It looks like it is helping the people at the top of the companies get very wealty while hurting the wages of the middle class.
BusinessWeek has once more surveyed executives of major corporations, and the folks at United for a Fair Economy (www.ufenet.org) have used its data to calculate that the average CEO collected $155,769 per week, compared with the $517 earned weekly by the average production worker. This means CEOs took in $301 for every dollar earned by rank-and-file employees.
And if most of the good paying (tax paying) jobs are shipped overseas, what will you do when your tax rade doubles to pay for the services those in the former middle class vote themselves?
Why do people that support 'free' trade always paint those that hold different views then they do as isolationists?
Most of the people who I know aren't upset because of trade, they are upset that the fucking playing field is majorly slanted against the American middle class.
Slashdot Mirror
Plz uz sml wrds. Oog smashed me, have dame bramage.
I see you have never had to deal with the goverment.
Just wait.
They make vs cs look perfect.
Please make an account (call in DAldredgeisDumb or something) so I can make you a friend and NEVER miss another of your posts.
Negative info about apple isn't allowed on /. I am really suprised the mods haven't down moded all the above posts that talk about the problem. Normally they try to bury such info.
Hell, about the only time I get a down mod is when I say something negative against apple. I even have a poster who follows my ebay buying history to 'harass' me about it.
It is all rather sad.
I bet apple buys more ad space from that company than the makers of the Rio do.
And the very large amount of weapons/ammo that the USA produced don't count? Nor do all the men that died making Normandy happen?
Rule 1: Do NOT offend major ad buyers.
Small world. Plz use small words. Me no know big words. Oog smash head with opensource cd, cause dame bramage.
Because it makes it easer for Apple (a major ad buyer) to win.
What color is the sky in your world? Don't answer now, I can wait till you come off your LSD/Crack trip.
That is all well and good till another major war breaks out and the USA isn't able to supply its armed forces with what they need. And, war will break out again, always has and always will.
And I am sure that American companies will be paid for their property too. Of course it will be in yuan and will then have to convert to dollars at the artificial low exchange rate...
OR perhaps mexico (one of the most corrupt goverments in the world) was afraid that the US would invade, China doesn't have that worry as we do not have the sealift capacity to land a sufficent number of US troups in China.
I am an American and I do not think that my childern should have to put up with a much lower standard of living and quality of life just so some F500 CEO can make a few million more.
BTW, nice intellegent response. Please go back to DU and/or FR.
I have no trouble with buying products from countries that have modern goverments who treat its citizens correctly. China and India do not fall into this catagory. China treats almost all it subjects as expendible and India's cast system and the 'untouchables' need to gotten rid of.
You sound like a FR poster. Just because someone buys from a local company doesn't mean the are the spawn of satan.
Motley Fool
CEOs Still Raking It In
Monday April 19, 10:17 am ET
By Selena Maranjian
Has corporate America learned anything from Americans' outrage over CEO compensation excesses, fueled by the likes of erstwhile Tyco (NYSE: TYC - News) CEO Dennis Kozlowski? Not too much, it seems.
BusinessWeek has once more surveyed executives of major corporations, and the folks at United for a Fair Economy (www.ufenet.org) have used its data to calculate that the average CEO collected $155,769 per week, compared with the $517 earned weekly by the average production worker. This means CEOs took in $301 for every dollar earned by rank-and-file employees.
Are such executives really 301 times more valuable than average workers? It's hard to imagine that's the case with so many major corporations not exactly performing in stellar fashion. Sure, some CEOs, such as Berkshire Hathaway's (NYSE: BRK.A - News)(NYSE: BRK.B - News) Warren Buffett and eBay's (Nasdaq: EBAY - News) Meg Whitman, take home relatively little in relation to the return their firms deliver to shareholders. But then, as BusinessWeek pointed out, you have Larry Ellison of Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL - News), who took in some $750 million in total pay in the three years from 2000 to 2003, while his shareholders lost 54%. And then there's Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW - News), who took in $35 million in the same period while his shareholder return was -84%.
Has the picture been improving any over time? Well, yes and no. The high-water mark for this survey came in 2001, when CEOs raked in 531 times what average workers did. That dropped precipitously in 2002, to 282, but has clearly inched up a bit since then. (The wide spread is largely due to the swooning stock market, which took with it the value of many bigwigs' stock options.) In 2003, the average surveyed CEO earned $8.1 million in total pay, up 9% from 2002. Meanwhile, the average production worker's salary increased just 2%. Step back further and the situation is grimmer. In 1982, CEOs took in just 42 times what average workers did.
Believe it or not, average Americans are not the only ones concerned about this. Back in 2002, The Conference Board issued recommendations on improving corporate compensation and governance, featuring some thoughts from Warren Buffett himself. Buffett pointed out that compensation committees often act like lap dogs, rubber-stamping CEO requests for pay increases, as CEOs strive to keep up with each other.
What's needed? A little more backbone in the boardroom, for starters. If you're paying a CEO $5 million per year and he wants $6 million, can you really not find someone else who's talented and would be happy to do the job for $5 million, or perhaps even $2 million? Let's see a little competition for these plum posts.
Share your thoughts on our discussion boards. We're offering a free 30-day trial. Drop in to see what Fools are saying.
Longtime Fool contributor Selena Maranjian owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, eBay, and Sun Microsystems.
These jobs aren't being lost because they are outdated. They are lost because companies, with insurace/tax incentives/military backing from the US goverment, are moving them overseas.
What do you think will happen if China or India nationalizes our industries? It happend to our oil companies in Mexico and it may happen again.
Where is the advantage to the average American in offshoring? It looks like it is helping the people at the top of the companies get very wealty while hurting the wages of the middle class.
BusinessWeek has once more surveyed executives of major corporations, and the folks at United for a Fair Economy (www.ufenet.org) have used its data to calculate that the average CEO collected $155,769 per week, compared with the $517 earned weekly by the average production worker. This means CEOs took in $301 for every dollar earned by rank-and-file employees.
Perhaps the reason I am not for they current US trade policy is that I do not wish to live like that rural peasant.
One of the many reasons is that I am a Christian and they take a very dim view of that religion in China.
And if most of the good paying (tax paying) jobs are shipped overseas, what will you do when your tax rade doubles to pay for the services those in the former middle class vote themselves?
Why do people that support 'free' trade always paint those that hold different views then they do as isolationists?
Most of the people who I know aren't upset because of trade, they are upset that the fucking playing field is majorly slanted against the American middle class.
Then why is China doing so well? They have very protectionist policies as do most of our other trading partners.
We are being forced to play on an uneven playing field.
Why not run W2K on that laptop?